Global parental leave in surgical careers: differences according to gender, geographical regions and surgical career stages.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of information regarding the provision of parental leave for surgical careers. This survey study aims to evaluate the experience of maternity/paternity leave and views on work-life balance globally. METHODS: A 55-item online survey in 24 languages was distributed via social media as per CHERRIES guideline from February to March 2020. It explored parental leave entitlements, attitude towards leave taking, financial impact, time spent with children and compatibility of parenthood with surgical career. RESULTS: Of the 1393 (male : female, 514 : 829) respondents from 65 countries, there were 479 medical students, 349 surgical trainees and 513 consultants. Consultants had less than the recommended duration of maternity leave (43.8 versus 29.1 per cent), no paid maternity (8.3 versus 3.2 per cent) or paternity leave (19.3 versus 11.0 per cent) compared with trainees. Females were less likely to have children than males (36.8 versus 45.6 per cent, P = 0.010) and were more often told surgery is incompatible with parenthood (80.2 versus 59.5 per cent, P < 0.001). Males spent less than 20 per cent of their salary on childcare and fewer than 30 hours/week with their children. More than half (59.2 per cent) of medical students did not believe a surgical career allowed work-life balance. CONCLUSION: Surgeons across the globe had inadequate parental leave. Significant gender disparity was seen in multiple aspects.

Validation of the colostomy impact score in patients ostomized for a benign condition.

AIM: The colostomy impact (CI) score is a patient-reported outcome measure assessing reduction in health-related quality of life (HRQL) due to a stoma. The score was originally developed and validated in a cohort of rectal cancer survivors with a permanent colostomy. For the CI score to be applied to patients with a colostomy after surgery for a benign condition it must be validated in this patient group. The aim of this study was to assess construct validity and known groups validity of the CI score in patients with a colostomy after surgery for a benign condition. METHOD: In a cross-sectional survey among ostomates in the Capital Region of Denmark, patients completed the CI score and the SF-36 v2 questionnaires. Construct validity was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficients and known groups validity was assessed by t-test when dividing patients into groups of minor or major CI. RESULTS: The CI score showed a moderate negative correlation with the Physical Component Summary (PCS) of -0.41 and a weak negative correlation with the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of -0.39. The strength of the correlation depended on the underlying condition leading to stoma formation. Differences were significant between the minor and major CI groups in mean PSC and MCS with t-values of 5.32 and 3.86, respectively. CONCLUSION: The CI score is a valid instrument for assessing stoma-related impact on HRQL regardless of the underlying condition leading to stoma formation, and the CI score discriminates meaningfully between groups with known differences in stoma-related reduced HRQL.